Stalker0's Alternate Core Skill Challenge System: FINAL VERSION 1.8!

[Magus Coeruleus]

I love how this is shaping up! I wrote a revised draft of 1.6 for you to check out, so if you can PM me an email address or some other way to get it to you (it's a RTF) I'll be happy to do that. Separately, I'd suggest you provide attachments in revised post to previous iterations of rules for those who want to follow the evolution or prefer an older version.

Edit: Gee everything moves quickly and you're already on 1.7! Well, still the point is not nicer layout in this case but suggestions on the structure of the documentation, language, and some terminology, clarifications, etc. so it should still be relevant. I'd rather not attach it in a post because it could confuse someone into thinking you've endorsed it when I just want to give you some suggested revisions.

 

[Stalker0]

I can't PM unfortunately. Feel free to post any updates you would like in a separate thread if you feel that would make things cleaner.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

I can't PM unfortunately. Feel free to post any updates you would like in a separate thread if you feel that would make things cleaner.

I'll just attach it here then and make clear that this is my suggestion and not a formatting of your approved product.

 

[The Eye]

Should the DC for Easy checks go down (from 20 to 19) when the challenge level shifts from 10 to 11? It could be ok mathematically, but it stood out as a possible typo.

 

[Stalker0]

Should the DC for Easy checks go down (from 20 to 19) when the challenge level shifts from 10 to 11? It could be ok mathematically, but it stood out as a possible typo.

Its not a typo, though I did notice that as well. For ease and consistency I altered the easy and hard checks at every tier. Although it wouldn't make a huge difference if I changed it to a 20, so if people feel its just too weird I can change it.

 

[The Eye]

Its not a typo, though I did notice that as well. For ease and consistency I altered the easy and hard checks at every tier. Although it wouldn't make a huge difference if I changed it to a 20, so if people feel its just too weird I can change it.

It was the only place I saw where the DC went down as the level went up. If it's as mathematically sound as the rest of the write-up, I've got no problems. It just stands out a little.

 

[dragon_eater]

When I read the first version of your skill challenge mechanics I was hesitant to try and use it. However, I feel that your new version has improved a lot.

Now I feel that not only are the numbers better then the ones in the Dungeon Master's Guide but that it would be more interesting to run then the default skill challenge system.

I suppose the only question I have is what should you do if you want to run complexity 4 or 5 challenges in a party without a really strong skill user?

 

[Stalker0]

I suppose the only question I have is what should you do if you want to run complexity 4 or 5 challenges in a party without a really strong skill user?

I'm actually working on that right now.

Basically I didn't run complexity 4 and 5 through the large variation of cases I've run the other ones through, I knew they were going to be special case scenarios designed for specific parties. However, the Bold Recovery mechanic curbs a lot of the issues I had with these complexities in the first place. With that in mind, I'm taking a much harder look at them. There is a possibility I could actually recommend complexity 4 as a regular challenge to normal parties. If not, then I should be able to come up with some guidelines for those who want to use them, a simple -1 DC might do the trick. I hope to have the results soon!

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

I don't know if this is feasible in the model or for that matter mathematically equivalent, but I think it would feel more intuitive if, instead of Bold Recovery successes retroactively modifying failed checks, The Bold Recovery check were modified by the magnitude of the original failure. Since recovery is a reaction to the failure and not an interrupt, it shouldn't really be revising the result so much as trying to compensate for it.

An additional advantage to this approach is that the players would not decline to try a recovery on account of knowing ahead of time that it could not succeed (i.e. if the failure was by >6). There could still be a chance for recovery, however difficult, if that subsequent roll went very well.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I used the your skill challenge system tonight for 3 challenges and it worked well. If complexity 1 wasn't a 1:1 ratio, nearly all 3 would have been a failure. The interesting one was in the second kobold ambush in the KotS, where the skirmisher attempted to run off into the woods and the ranger was hot on its tail. The rest of the party dealt with the wyrmpriest that was left and alone he rolled an Acrobatics, Nature, Perception, Endurance, and finally Acrobatics.

Before the last acrobatics he had 2 successes and 2 failures, and the last failure indicated that he lost the kobold and the Kobold Lair would be ready for the party. So, I told him he was in the "Time of Trials" and that he could expend a healing surge in order to gain +2 on his check. He agreed and made one final leap with his acrobatics skill, ending up with a 18 with the +2 included. Epic!

I also fudged it when everyone but 1 person (the wizard) rolled well on their stealth check on the first encounter, saying that the player could draw on his vitality in order to reroll the stealth check, which ended up letting the whole party have surprise at the expense of a surge. Not so much a skill challenge but I wouldn't have thought to use a healing surge as a bargain without reading this. On second thought though, maybe something closer to the bold recovery would make more sense. Something like the wizard is about to step on to a branch, so the ranger or rogue uses bold recovery and grabs on to the wizard's shoulders and shakes her head.